State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Alice Jean Logan, Appellant.
Decision date: UnknownED78109
Parties & Roles
- Appellant
- Alice Jean Logan
- Respondent
- State of Missouri
Disposition
Dismissed
Slip Opinion Notice
This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.
Opinion
This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court. Opinion Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District Case Style: State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Alice Jean Logan, Appellant. Case Number: ED78109 Handdown Date: 04/24/2001 Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Charles County, Hon. Lucy D. Rauch Counsel for Appellant: Party Acting Pro Se Counsel for Respondent: John Munson Morris, III Opinion Summary: Alice J. Logan appeals from her conviction of perjury. The trial court suspended the execution of sentence and placed her on five years probation. She appeared pro se and filed her record on appeal without a trial transcript. DISMISSED. Division Three holds: Failure to provide a transcript on appeal is grounds for dismissal. Without a transcript, this Court cannot decide the issues presented for review. Citation: Opinion Author: George W. Draper III, Judge Opinion Vote: DISMISSED. Gaertner, Sr., P.J., and Crahan, J., concur. Opinion: Alice J. Logan (hereinafter, "Appellant") appeals from the trial court's judgment convicting her of perjury. The trial court suspended the execution of sentence and placed Appellant on five years probation. The State filed a motion to dismiss the appeal that was taken with the case. This motion is granted; we dismiss. Appellant's trial attorney filed the original notice of appeal as well as a request for a trial transcript on May 24, 2000, prior to his withdrawal. The request to perfect her appeal in forma pauperis was denied on May 25, 2000.
Thereafter, Appellant entered a pro se appearance, and requested a trial transcript on June 3, 2000. On October 12, 2000, she filed a letter with this Court stating: "Since justice is for sale and I cannot afford the transcript, been refused the transcript by the trial court and this court, this APPEAL will be perfected without a transcript."(FN1) Pursuant to Rule 81.12, the record on appeal must contain a copy of the trial transcript and a legal file. The appellant has the duty to order the transcript and compile the record on appeal. Rule 81.12(c). Pro se litigants must meet the same standards as attorneys including compliance with the rules of procedure. Snelling v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 996 S.W.2d 601, 604 (Mo. App. E.D. 1999). Failure to comply with the rules of procedure is grounds for dismissal. Shochet v. Allen, 987 S.W.2d 516, 518 (Mo. App. E.D. 1999). For this Court to make a determination of the issues raised, a trial transcript must be submitted as part of the record on appeal, and where such information is not included, there is nothing for this Court to review because it is unable to determine whether the trial court erred. Arnold v. State, 789 S.W.2d 525, 526 (Mo. App. E.D. 1990). Appellant did not file a transcript as part of her record on appeal. Appellant had the duty to file the necessary records with this Court for appellate review and did not comply with the rules. Hence, we cannot review the issues presented in her brief for error. We dismiss. Footnotes: FN1. Appellant did not file a motion with this Court requesting a copy of the transcript, nor did she file a writ of mandamus with this Court to compel the trial court to fulfill her request. Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Authorities Cited
Statutes, rules, and cases referenced in this opinion.
Rules
- Rule 81.12cited
Rule 81.12
Cases
- court to review because it is unable to determine whether the trial court erred arnold v state 789 sw2d 525cited
Court to review because it is unable to determine whether the trial court erred. Arnold v. State, 789 S.W.2d 525
- shochet v allen 987 sw2d 516cited
Shochet v. Allen, 987 S.W.2d 516
Related Opinions
Other opinions in the same practice area.
Rodney Lee Lincoln, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.(2014)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictDecember 2, 2104#ED100987
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. James McGregory, Appellant.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictMarch 10, 2026#ED113080
McGregory appealed his convictions for domestic assault in the third degree and property damage in the second degree, raising unpreserved claims of error regarding evidence admissibility and the Crime Victims' Compensation Fund judgment amount. The court affirmed the convictions but modified the CVC judgment amount, finding the trial court entered a judgment in excess of that authorized by law.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. RUSSELL KENNETH CLANCY, Appellant(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictFebruary 25, 2026#SD38782
The court affirmed Clancy's conviction for second-degree assault against a special victim after a jury trial. The evidence was sufficient to prove that Clancy punched an elderly civilian in the face and struck a police officer during an altercation at a laundromat, supporting the conviction under Missouri statute § 565.052.3.
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. James Willis Peters, Appellant.(2026)
Supreme Court of MissouriFebruary 24, 2026#SC101218
James Willis Peters appealed his conviction for driving while intoxicated as a chronic offender, challenging whether the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that all four of his prior offenses were intoxication-related traffic offenses. The court found the state failed to sufficiently prove his 2002 offense was an IRTO and therefore vacated the judgment and remanded for resentencing.
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Elizabeth M. Speer, Appellant.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 17, 2026#ED113172
The court reversed defendant's convictions for second-degree property damage and fourth-degree assault because the trial court failed to conduct an adequate Faretta hearing and failed to ensure a written waiver of counsel was entered prior to trial, as required by Missouri law. Although the defendant did not preserve the issue by objecting at trial, the court found the error must be reviewed because the failure to conduct a proper Faretta hearing is a constitutional violation that cannot be waived.